 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Miller v. Commonwealth10/11/2005
of the DL-26 form to include the new penalties, the warnings contained therein were no longer valid. In rejecting this argument, we explained:
It is not the duty of the police to explain the various sanctions available under a given law to an arrestee to give that individual an opportunity to decide whether it is worth it to violate that law. It is sufficient for the police to inform a motorist that he or she will be in violation of the law and will be penalized for that violation if he or she should fail to accede to the officer's request for a chemical test. The verbiage on form DL-26 informs a motorist that he or she will be in violation of the law and will be penalized for that violation if he or she should fail to accede to the officer's request for a chemical test; that is sufficient information upon which to base a decision as to whether or not to submit to chemical testing.
Id. at 2. Inasmuch as we determined in Weaver that the warnings in the December 2003 version of DOT's DL-26 form meet the requirements of Section 1547(b)(2) of the Code, we conclude that Weaver is controlling in the present case. Here, as in Weaver, Licensee was warned that her operating privilege would be suspended for at least one year if she refused the chemical test.
In accord with Weaver, we reverse the order of the trial court and reinstate the one-year suspension of Licensee's operating privilege.
AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2005, the December 23, 2004 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County is REVERSED and Appellant's one-year suspension of Appellee's operating privilege is REINSTATED.
JESS S. JIULIANTE, Senior Judge
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|